IrishViking wrote:
DefinitelyAHomerVikingFan: Man, Rodgers looks really good. I am super scared about playing them a second time, Their defense is as good as our and their offense is miles ahead. I wish JordyGhost was here to supply some insight. He was always so insightful. Go Skol Go? Amirite? Pack looks good.
Cliff wrote:Nope. It got close after the loss but he simply hasn't signed back in since the Monday after the game. I'm considering writing a query to see if any other usernames are using his IP
I was not aware of that room, I always just look at Vikings Talk. A good think I wasn't in there I might have gotten banned for posts in a no holds barred room like that. Nothing is more fun that hazing a delusional packer's fan. You just know every word you say that isn't "Packers Rule" is like pissing in their holy water. Sometimes it is fun to see how much urine it takes before it boils.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
dkoby wrote:
That was an impressive sack he had on Cam. He ran to where he was going to be and threw him down like a ragdoll
I have re-watched the highlights from the GB game a few times.....B Robs strip of A-Aron was pretty impressive. Watch how he pauses a split second against the O lineman that was trying to block him....then just blows past him and onto Erin. Thing of beauty.
Hey, I rarely post, but was curious as to what people thought of the below article.
I was on FiveThirtyEight this morning looking for debate news when I saw it. The premise of the argument is that we are in for a rude awakening since our success over the first three weeks is the result of things that aren't statistically sustainable (e.g. turnovers, returns for TDs).
FirstAndTen wrote:Hey, I rarely post, but was curious as to what people thought of the below article.
I was on FiveThirtyEight this morning looking for debate news when I saw it. The premise of the argument is that we are in for a rude awakening since our success over the first three weeks is the result of things that aren't statistically sustainable (e.g. turnovers, returns for TDs).
FirstAndTen wrote:Hey, I rarely post, but was curious as to what people thought of the below article.
I was on FiveThirtyEight this morning looking for debate news when I saw it. The premise of the argument is that we are in for a rude awakening since our success over the first three weeks is the result of things that aren't statistically sustainable (e.g. turnovers, returns for TDs).
There is probably a little truth to it, but I also think it underestimates our ability to improve on offense once Bradford settles into the role.
Thoughts?
The fact of the matter is.....the OL has to hit some consistency soon because even tho our D is pretty awesome there will come a time when we cannot win the turnover battle and will need the offense to score TDs and sustain drives. I'll take average play at this time thank you....lol
I think also we played a good Tennessee defense with Shaun Hill. We played a good GB defense with a new QB in Bradford. Then we played one of the top 5 defenses in the league in Carolina.
The defense has really been exceptional, but I anticipate the offense to start generating points here soon.
This team might be the real deal and will continue to get better. Hopefully no more OL injuries
FirstAndTen wrote:Hey, I rarely post, but was curious as to what people thought of the below article.
I was on FiveThirtyEight this morning looking for debate news when I saw it. The premise of the argument is that we are in for a rude awakening since our success over the first three weeks is the result of things that aren't statistically sustainable (e.g. turnovers, returns for TDs).
Holy Moly! That was just a stream of consciousness superego wankfest.
